'Thoughts on Flash', by Steve Jobs

In a surprise move, Steve Jobs on Thursday posted an open letter on Apple’s home page concerning Flash, HTML5, and the future. 

Jobs states that though Adobe and Apple have been close partners since the former’s inception, the two have progressively grown apart from differences in interests. Though the two corporate entities still scratch each others back with Mac users buying half of Adobe’s CS products, Jobs states that Flash will not be allowed on the iPhone, iPod, and iPad due to several reasons: openness, the “full web”, reliability, security, performance, battery life, touch, and software integration.

In the end, Steve concludes that Flash was designed mainly for computers and mouse-driven devices and that it would not be in Apple’s interest to pursue it in their touch-based mobile devices. He proclaims HTML5 the way forward for a more open, standards based web and suggests that “Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind."

Here’s the full letter:

"Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

First, there’s “Open”.

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

Fourth, there’s battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

Fifth, there’s Touch.

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Steve Jobs

April, 2010"

Photo Credit Zadi Diaz.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Office Web Apps to have version support

Next Story

Bungie signs 10-year exclusive deal with Activision

164 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

all of the reasons except 1 make sense but the one Seventh, the even more important reason
Flash could give access to games outside of the appstore, so we can't make money off those.
that reason is soo stupid and absurd,they charge way too much for there stuff and expect all to not get anything free but the main point that failjobs is missing is the fact that since flash is very popular you can't cut it out totaly, you will need to allow even some of it to be allowed but at the same time offer tools that would allow you to convert your stuff to HTML5 then when flash is almost meaningless then cut it out as who would want to use flash at that time, jobs is not using his head, if you want to be open with everything then you need to do it right and the way your doing it is all wrong.

Seventh, the even more important reason
Flash could give access to games outside of the appstore, so we can't make money off those.

Steve Jobs

Sent from my iPad

k7of9 said,
Seventh, the even more important reason
Flash could give access to games outside of the appstore, so we can't make money off those.

Steve Jobs

Sent from my iPad

That is totally the reason. Oh wait. No its not. How can that be in any way true when they want HTML5 on there devices which can make games? Try again troll and use logic this time.

I just wanted to congratulate everyone in this thread on posting constructive comments respecting each others opinions.

BigCheese said,
Holy ****, Steve Jobs is not wearing jeans and a black t shirt.
How do you know he isn't wearing Jeans ? and maybe a Black undershirt.

Steve Jobs says:

"Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open."

But doesn't he still want proprietary standards for video and audio formats, and wants the HTML5 video and audio tag to use Apple supported formats instead of something like OGG?

brianshapiro said,
Steve Jobs says:

"Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open."

But doesn't he still want proprietary standards for video and audio formats, and wants the HTML5 video and audio tag to use Apple supported formats instead of something like OGG?

Ogg Vorbis is perfectly fine for audio. I have a feeling most <audio> elements will use MP3, but that's beside the point.

Ogg Theora has technical limitations that don't make it viable right now. For Apple, the biggest one is that there's no hardware acceleration for it yet. It also takes more bandwidth to pump comparable quality over in comparison to H.264. But hey, H.264 is free to content providers for another 5 years, so that's how long Ogg Theora or another free codec has to get better.

Elliott said,

Ogg Vorbis is perfectly fine for audio. I have a feeling most <audio> elements will use MP3, but that's beside the point.

Ogg Theora has technical limitations that don't make it viable right now. For Apple, the biggest one is that there's no hardware acceleration for it yet. It also takes more bandwidth to pump comparable quality over in comparison to H.264. But hey, H.264 is free to content providers for another 5 years, so that's how long Ogg Theora or another free codec has to get better.

So then Apple can make H.264 an open standard instead of keeping it proprietary. The technical issues miss the point. Does Apple really care about an 'open web' or doesn't it?

They don't; its just political spin on Apple's part.

brianshapiro said,

So then Apple can make H.264 an open standard instead of keeping it proprietary. The technical issues miss the point. Does Apple really care about an 'open web' or doesn't it?

They don't; its just political spin on Apple's part.

Apple doesn't own H.264. The pay licensing fees to the MPEGLA just like everybody else using H.264 decoders. They were just one of the first to jump on H.264.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 29 2010, 8:50pm :

Elliott said,
Apple doesn't own H.264. The pay licensing fees to the MPEGLA just like everybody else using H.264 decoders. They were just one of the first to jump on H.264.

OK, but doesn't Apple work with the MPEG group , in addition to other corporations?

brianshapiro said,
OK, but doesn't Apple work with the MPEG group , in addition to other corporations?
In the same way that Microsoft, Adobe, Samsung, Nokia, LG, etc. do. I could go on and on. Apple really doesn't gain anything from pushing H.264. It's just that H.264 offers the best experience at this point.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 29 2010, 11:27pm :

Elliott said,
In the same way that Microsoft, Adobe, Samsung, Nokia, LG, etc. do. I could go on and on. Apple really doesn't gain anything from pushing H.264. It's just that H.264 offers the best experience at this point.

But the question here is whether Steve Jobs really is honest when he says he cares about an 'open web', or is just using that as political cover for keeping a closed platform on iOS devices.


Also, doesn't Apple have some investment in FairPlay and other DRM technologies that are incorporated into these standards?

Edited by brianshapiro, Apr 30 2010, 12:13am :

I completely understand his viewpoint on the matter. I think ultimately both companies need to stop commenting on each other when it comes to what Flash will hold for the future and just move on, however I think Steve took a bold step to release an "official" statement on his thoughts on flash and it was a good move. Maybe others will stop stepping up into the light to bash Apple for something they simply are just moving forward on.

I agree on his viewpoint that Flash was originally intended and developed for PCs (and while it doesn't run "great" on a Mac, it does run fairly well). Apple has a new line of products that are built on a totally different requirement from it's end users (portability at it's finest in a nutshell I guess you could say) - and one they didn't see as a requirement or needed was Flash. There is a newer alternative and I think Apple is trying to better themselves by adopting something new and giving it a bit of steam to move forward.

I hate the fact he posted his thoughts on flash - I can't really complain anymore - his points seem pretty valid.

It's hard to refute his points: flash is slow, bloated, hogs memory, proprietary and designed with PCs in mind.. but despite all of that, who the hell are Apple to tell their customers what they can and can't install on devices they've paid for? The final choice should be up to the consumer. If a customer wants to install flash despite all of its flaws, it should be their perogative.

This is why I will never buy an Apple device again. Google/HTC don't tell me what I can and can't put on my Desire, which is exactly how it should be

I'm a computer engineer by trade and never use any of Apple's devices, but I'll tell you one thing... I agree with Steve Jobs 100%.

Found some good quotes I thought on Digg

"For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X."

At least they beat Apple to it: iTunes, Final Cut Pro, and even the FINDER are still Carbon apps. Looks like Apple hasn't fully adopted Mac OS X either."

"The unstated seventh reason: Flash can be used to build applications, completely circumventing the App Store. You'll be able to write what apps you want without Apple's approval. Hello, FlashPornStore, etc."

shakey said,
At least they beat Apple to it: iTunes, Final Cut Pro, and even the FINDER are still Carbon apps. Looks like Apple hasn't fully adopted Mac OS X either."
He's right except for Finder. Finder is completely Cocoa in Snow Leopard.

Then again, Final Cut Pro and iTunes are not known crashers on OS X, unlike just about every CS4 app.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 29 2010, 5:04pm :

Ruler of the Interwebs said,
could have just said:

"Nope.

Posted from my iPhone"

I lol'd. Would've been the best open letter ever.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 29 2010, 7:19pm :

Renato456 said,
They just don't allow Flash because people would buy their stupid games from itunes store.

Lots of games on the store are free. That's a little fact that you and others who make this ignorant statement tend to ignore.

roadwarrior said,

Lots of games on the store are free. That's a little fact that you and others who make this ignorant statement tend to ignore.

That and Apple openly says they want full HTML5 support which, wait for the shock factor.... will allow free games on the browser!

Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

If Apple doesn't want to use Flash, fine. I couldn't care less.
But don't give us stupid reasons.
Many HTML websites also use rollovers done with js and all that. They also have to be rewritten. This is something that has NOTHING to do with Flash, but how things are implemented. If apps are implemented with the mouse in mind and don't support touch, it is about HOW they are implemented, not with what they are implemented.

dodgetigger said,

If Apple doesn't want to use Flash, fine. I couldn't care less.
But don't give us stupid reasons.
Many HTML websites also use rollovers done with js and all that. They also have to be rewritten. This is something that has NOTHING to do with Flash, but how things are implemented. If apps are implemented with the mouse in mind and don't support touch, it is about HOW they are implemented, not with what they are implemented.
Which is why JS rollovers that hide content are frowned upon.

SH3K0 said,
A good respond from Adobe should be *No Mac support for Adobe CS5* see how that plans out
That's never happening. Adobe has even said it. Adobe makes great money off of creative professionals using Macs.

That being said, I'm always looking for alternatives to Adobe's products. They just never seem to get it quite right.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 29 2010, 4:55pm :

SH3K0 said,
A good respond from Adobe should be *No Mac support for Adobe CS5* see how that plans out
It would pan out with a 40-50% drop in Adobe Profits over the next year.

Adobe needs Apple far more than Apple needs them these days. Sure both would loose if Adobe did it, some Mac users would switch to PC, but how many ? How fast ? You think they are just gonna drop their $5,000 MacPro's and get a Dell for the latest version of the CS Suite ? They are just as likely to keep what they have now and at minimum wait till they reach their computers lifespan. And in that time alternatives could come up.. You really think Apple couldn't make their own Photoshop and Illustrator if they wanted too ? They have the resources..

Ryoken said,
It would pan out with a 40-50% drop in Adobe Profits over the next year.

Adobe needs Apple far more than Apple needs them these days. Sure both would loose if Adobe did it, some Mac users would switch to PC, but how many ? How fast ? You think they are just gonna drop their $5,000 MacPro's and get a Dell for the latest version of the CS Suite ? They are just as likely to keep what they have now and at minimum wait till they reach their computers lifespan. And in that time alternatives could come up.. You really think Apple couldn't make their own Photoshop and Illustrator if they wanted too ? They have the resources..

Ok, why not hold back releasing the Mac version of CS5 until the PC version of CS6 is released. Making Macs always one iteration behind, just like Office for Mac.

Edited by neo158, Apr 29 2010, 10:50pm :

Tom W said,
Adobe will respond and completely ignore all of his valid points.

Funny...almost all the points he made in his letter are also valid points against Apple itself. Safari on OS X crashes a lot. Quicktime crashes a lot. Shall they get rid of them too? Honestly, you can apply his comments to almost any product.

Edited by zagor, Apr 29 2010, 4:51pm :

zagor said,

Safari on OS X crashes a lot.

9 times out of 10, when Safari crashes, it's due to Flash (a point that Steve makes in his letter).

roadwarrior said,

9 times out of 10, when Safari crashes, it's due to Flash (a point that Steve makes in his letter).

Even without flash safari is able to crash. But how come other browsers can run flash fine? How about flash runs smoothly on windows? I guess they didn't get Safari "right".. I am tired of hearing "flash sucks" comments. I can easily watch two 1080p flash movies on a C2D 1.8 GHz equipped tablet PC, simultaneously.

Edited by zagor, Apr 29 2010, 5:33pm :

zagor said,

Even without flash safari is able to crash. But how come other browsers can run flash fine? How about flash runs smoothly on windows? I guess they didn't get Safari "right".. I am tired of hearing "flash sucks" comments. I can easily watch two 1080p flash movies on a C2D 1.8 GHz equipped tablet PC, simultaneously.
That's rather ignorant. The Flash Player plugin is OS independent ( sometimes Browser independent.. ) To blame the browser for the Plugins faults is like blaming Windows because some program I downloaded crashes alot.

zagor said,
Even without flash safari is able to crash. But how come other browsers can run flash fine? How about flash runs smoothly on windows? I guess they didn't get Safari "right".. I am tired of hearing "flash sucks" comments. I can easily watch two 1080p flash movies on a C2D 1.8 GHz equipped tablet PC, simultaneously.
Just like even without Flash, Chrome is able to crash. And even without Flash, IE is able to crash. Flash a is a crasher, and it's one of the reasons Apple implemented out-of-process plugins. Now, when Flash crashes, Flash crashes. Safari is left unscathed.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 29 2010, 5:42pm :

I had to stop at " you can only get adobe products from adobe, so they are a closed product..." wtf ever mr. jobs. I can only get a mcdouble at mcdonalds, I can only get a toyota from a toyota dealership, well, unless I buy used lol. What kind of statement is that. It's the exact same thing apple is doing, but hes holding adobe over the flame.... pot meet kettle, and burn.

shakey said,
I had to stop at " you can only get adobe products from adobe, so they are a closed product..." wtf ever mr. jobs. I can only get a mcdouble at mcdonalds, I can only get a toyota from a toyota dealership, well, unless I buy used lol. What kind of statement is that. It's the exact same thing apple is doing, but hes holding adobe over the flame.... pot meet kettle, and burn.

You can only get a Mac...from Apple.

Antaris said,

You can only get a Mac...from Apple.

I find it sad that a company, so untrue to every word they ever seem to say, has so much success. It's like people just ignore morals these days.

shakey said,
I find it sad that a company, so untrue to every word they ever seem to say, has so much success. It's like people just ignore morals these days.
I know. It's not like another company that's done shady stuff in the past has had success *cough*Microsoft*cough*.

Elliott said,
I know. It's not like another company that's done shady stuff in the past has had success *cough*Microsoft*cough*.

I have more respect for Microsoft, as what Bill and his wife do for the rest of the world, than I do for Steve and how he can't stop trashing one thing or another.

shakey said,

I have more respect for Microsoft, as what Bill and his wife do for the rest of the world, than I do for Steve and how he can't stop trashing one thing or another.

Bill Gates is a great man, and I know the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is an amazing project, but it's not like Steve doesn't care about other human beings.

That really wasn't what I was arguing anyhow. The actions of Microsoft as a company not too long ago were ruthless and anti-competitive, arguably moreso than anything Apple has done as of late. That's water under the bridge now and you keep on using Windows.

"There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world." ROFL There is just so much more I don't know where to begin.

If someone is going to force a proprietary product down your throat or raid your home, it will be US! - S.Jobs

Dashel said,
If someone is going to force a proprietary product down your throat or raid your home, it will be US! - S.Jobs
Yeup, because you were just forced to buy an iDevice or steal and sell an iPhone prototype.

Also, the raid was done by THE POLICE. I don't see why people can't get that through their skulls. Apple doesn't have their own police force, and the law doesn't answer to Apple.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 29 2010, 3:40pm :

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps

I don't fully agree on this part - take javascript libraries such as jQuery, they are considered a third party library and if anything, they help with rapid development of applications. Completely preventing third party libraries may put a great number of people off of developing for their platform in my honest opinion.

JustinN said,

I don't fully agree on this part - take javascript libraries such as jQuery, they are considered a third party library and if anything, they help with rapid development of applications. Completely preventing third party libraries may put a great number of people off of developing for their platform in my honest opinion.

The difference is that jQuery is just JavaScript which is a browser standard.

JustinN said,

I don't fully agree on this part - take javascript libraries such as jQuery, they are considered a third party library and if anything, they help with rapid development of applications. Completely preventing third party libraries may put a great number of people off of developing for their platform in my honest opinion.

jQuery isn't a platform on top of a platform, though. It's a framework and doesn't abstract the underlying language the same way Flash does. Yes, it makes things easier, but if you need to, you can still dig right down into plain non-jQuery JavaScript without any trouble. If you're developing in Flash and need to access straight Objective-C, you can't.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 29 2010, 3:26pm :

Elliott said,
jQuery isn't a platform on top of a platform, though. It's a framework and doesn't abstract the underlying language the same way Flash does. Yes, it makes things easier, but if you need to, you can still dig right down into plain non-jQuery JavaScript without any trouble. If you're developing in Flash and need to access straight Objective-C, you can't.

I believe I should have worded myself better. What I was saying is that from my understanding, Apple are preventing people from using third party development libraries to develop for their platform. I am all for Flash disappearing from modern devices, however it was just the overall concept of third party development libraries and applications. From my understanding (which may be incorrect from information I have been given), Apple want everybody to use their own libraries, and prevent other's from creating something, which ultimately compiles down into the same thing (much like Mono for C# on Linux). As mentioned, I could be completely off, and have mis-understood what others have told me about development for the Apple platform.

JustinN said,
I believe I should have worded myself better. What I was saying is that from my understanding, Apple are preventing people from using third party development libraries to develop for their platform. I am all for Flash disappearing from modern devices, however it was just the overall concept of third party development libraries and applications. From my understanding (which may be incorrect from information I have been given), Apple want everybody to use their own libraries, and prevent other's from creating something, which ultimately compiles down into the same thing (much like Mono for C# on Linux). As mentioned, I could be completely off, and have mis-understood what others have told me about development for the Apple platform.

There's a difference between frameworks and languages. Frameworks can augment or abstract complex functions without completely removing you from the language at hand. In Apple's mind, third party frameworks are fine, and there are plenty available to iPhone OS developers. What Apple is against is using different languages/platforms that don't natively compile in Xcode to usable iPhone OS code. In something like Flash, you can't get to the C/C++/Objective-C that's underneath. It just, all of a sudden, magically compiles into a binary and you're on your way. That's what Apple doesn't want.

It's still not clear as to whether MonoTouch and Unity are getting blocked, BTW. One would think they are, though.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 29 2010, 3:22pm :

"Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world."

Am I mis-reading that or would I be fair in saying that I could find 50,000 flash games that I could play on my PC, then add on proper retail games meaning I could find more?
Correct me if I'm wrong on that statement but "any other platform in the world" seems a bit of a grand statement

Teebor said,
"Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world."

Am I mis-reading that or would I be fair in saying that I could find 50,000 flash games that I could play on my PC, then add on proper retail games meaning I could find more?
Correct me if I'm wrong on that statement but "any other platform in the world" seems a bit of a grand statement

Windows is a Platform, as is Flash. Just because you can run them both doesn't make it a single platform..

It would be like MS adding Original XBox titles to their 360 totals.. They may work, but they aren't part of the 360 platform.

Ryoken said,
Windows is a Platform, as is Flash. Just because you can run them both doesn't make it a single platform..

So if I can find over 50,000 games on Flash alone (which I am sure I probably can) then this statement is still invalid

Pretty much everything I've been saying on the arguments against Flash here on Neowin. Not that I'm claiming to have any greater insight than Steve Jobs over the mater. It was just obvious.

Vice said,
Pretty much everything I've been saying on the arguments against Flash here on Neowin. Not that I'm claiming to have any greater insight than Steve Jobs over the mater. It was just obvious.
+1

People speculating over the matter have speculated these reasons for a long time. Turns out these actually are the reasons Apple is using.

Elliott said,
+1

People speculating over the matter have speculated these reasons for a long time. Turns out these actually are the reasons Apple is using.

Maybe Jobs watches Neowin... DUN DUN DUN

These are the same old, tired arguments that were debunked months ago. Flash won't be a problem on other mobile devices, so why should it be on the iPhone.

Steve Jobs should just cut the crap and speak truthfully: he wants vendor lock-in. He wants the iPhone/Pad/Pod to be the de facto mobile platform, and he wants to stop developers from writing cross-platform native mobile apps by demanding that all apps for his platform be written using his tools only. This is the only way he can 100% protect the revenue he makes from the App Store.

The funny thing is, this is the way he will jeopardise the revenue he makes from the App Store.

Apple is the new "old Microsoft". Can't wait for the share holders to kick him out of the company again

noleafclover said,
These are the same old, tired arguments that were debunked months ago. Flash won't be a problem on other mobile devices, so why should it be on the iPhone.

Steve Jobs should just cut the crap and speak truthfully: he wants vendor lock-in. He wants the iPhone/Pad/Pod to be the de facto mobile platform, and he wants to stop developers from writing cross-platform native mobile apps by demanding that all apps for his platform be written using his tools only. This is the only way he can 100% protect the revenue he makes from the App Store.

The funny thing is, this is the way he will jeopardise the revenue he makes from the App Store.

Apple is the new "old Microsoft". Can't wait for the share holders to kick him out of the company again

Did you actually read that before you posted? Objective C ports to ALL devices. It is cross platform. HTML5 does the exact opposite of protecting the revenue he makes on the App Store.

noleafclover said,
These are the same old, tired arguments that were debunked months ago. Flash won't be a problem on other mobile devices, so why should it be on the iPhone.
There's no proof of that yet. We'll see how Flash supports each device's own special APIs and features. My guess is that Adobe won't keep up very well.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 29 2010, 3:25pm :

SputnikGamer said,
Did you actually read that before you posted? Objective C ports to ALL devices. It is cross platform. HTML5 does the exact opposite of protecting the revenue he makes on the App Store.

Porting code is different to building once and running on multiple platforms without any extra work. Flash and AIR could provide this, native Objective-C iPhone apps cannot.

hotdog963al said,
Some very fair points in that article.

Yeah. He had me from "Apple"...

In all seriousness though, he came off much less "dicky" than he usually does, so bravo to whoever edited this for him... And I did agree with his points aside from the 3rd party development tools restriction...

Just a reaction to the news post, not the contents:

Can you PLEASE not make long blocks of text Italic? It's terribly hard to read. Put a quote container around it or a line on the left side, but please no Italics...

Ambroos said,
Just a reaction to the news post, not the contents:

Can you PLEASE not make long blocks of text Italic? It's terribly hard to read. Put a quote container around it or a line on the left side, but please no Italics...

Astigmatism? Quote container would be nice.

Ambroos said,
Just a reaction to the news post, not the contents:

Can you PLEASE not make long blocks of text Italic? It's terribly hard to read. Put a quote container around it or a line on the left side, but please no Italics...

A quote container WOULD be nice... +1

The only reason he doesn't want flash is because it will affect the app store business model... but at least now he has a few other reasons to mask his true feelings.

Quigley Guy said,
The only reason he doesn't want flash is because it will affect the app store business model... but at least now he has a few other reasons to mask his true feelings.
Nice to know the world is so cut and dry.. Everything is always about 1 issue.

I love how people are saying HTML5 will replace Flash. HTML5 is not even fully completed yet and not out in production. Its pretty stupid to assume it will take off and become the new standard. And even if HTML5 will come out on top, thats a long ways away.

techbeck said,
I love how people are saying HTML5 will replace Flash. HTML5 is not even fully completed yet and not out in production. Its pretty stupid to assume it will take off and become the new standard. And even if HTML5 will come out on top, thats a long ways away.
Yes, because people will stick with...XHTML? HTML5 will become dominant as a spec. Whether most of its technologies will be adopted is another thing. I think they will be (certainly video). The whole spec isn't even completed yet and big names are supporting it thanks to the iPhone OS.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 29 2010, 2:18pm :

techbeck said,
I love how people are saying HTML5 will replace Flash. HTML5 is not even fully completed yet and not out in production. Its pretty stupid to assume it will take off and become the new standard. And even if HTML5 will come out on top, thats a long ways away.

How is it stupid? HTML5 isn't completed yet and it already can do everything that flash can when combined with JavaScript.

Elliott said,
Yes, because people will stick with...XHTML? HTML5 will become dominant as a spec. Whether most of its technologies will be adopted is another thing. I think they will be (certainly video). The whole spec isn't even completed yet and big names are supporting it thanks to the iPhone OS.

Yea, doesnt matter if big names are supporting it...it could still fail.

SputnikGamer said,

How is it stupid? HTML5 isn't completed yet and it already can do everything that flash can when combined with JavaScript.

Because its putting a lot of faith in to something that isnt even finished. I am not saying HTML5 will come out on top, but that its still up in the air...imo

Edited by techbeck, Apr 29 2010, 2:02pm :

techbeck said,

Yea, doesnt matter if big names are supporting it...it could still fail.

Chrome, IE, Firefox, and Safari will have full support of the standard. Who else do you need to confirm to say its not fail?

SputnikGamer said,

Chrome, IE, Firefox, and Safari will have full support of the standard. Who else do you need to confirm to say its not fail?

I want to see it finished and in production before I make and judgments on whether or not it will fail. By the time HTML5 is finished, something else may come along to rival it. From what I read, HTML5 wont be fully finished for 2-20 years or so. Thats a long time.

http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FA...n_will_HTML5_be_finished.3F

techbeck said,

Because its putting a lot of faith in to something that isnt even finished. I am not saying HTML5 will come out on top, but that its still up in the air...imo

That is the point though! It isn't even finished and yet it already has the functionality to do everything Flash can do.

techbeck said,
I want to see it finished and in production before I make and judgments on whether or not it will fail. By the time HTML5 is finished, something else may come along to rival it.
It is in production, just not complete.

It is the standard. What do you think will rival it? HTML isn't going anywhere.

techbeck said,

I want to see it finished and in production before I make and judgments on whether or not it will fail.
It doesn't work like that on the web. It's Never "finished" until it's already dying.

SputnikGamer said,

That is the point though! It isn't even finished and yet it already has the functionality to do everything Flash can do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing that HTML5 can do is video playback. What about Flash Games and Animation?

Edited by neo158, Apr 29 2010, 9:27pm :

techbeck said,

Yea, doesnt matter if big names are supporting it...it could still fail.

In tech like this, support = success because it means adoption. Look at Bluray vs. HD DVD...

SputnikGamer said,

Chrome, IE, Firefox, and Safari will have full support of the standard. Who else do you need to confirm to say its not fail?

Well, they are all supporting parts of it. Full support hasn't been announced as planned yet. Same with IE... I'm sure it will happen at some point though, but so far they've just been whittling down the list...

on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained

Steve must have access to a special iPhone. Mine couldn't last 2 hours playing video....

JonathanMarston said,

Steve must have access to a special iPhone. Mine couldn't last 2 hours playing video....

'

Your iPhone could but you would have to turn the sound to the minimum setting and lowest brightness. Standard marketing ploy.

JonathanMarston said,

Steve must have access to a special iPhone. Mine couldn't last 2 hours playing video....

I really need to test his 10 hours out. I think the keywords here are "up to". Maybe he is talking about the new iPhone. Well, the app on my phone that shows how much battery life I have for different things says 10 hours for Video. Hmm...

JonathanMarston said,

Steve must have access to a special iPhone. Mine couldn't last 2 hours playing video....

The 10 hours is a major stretch. Probably only possible on a full charge and by turning down the brightness, using headphones, and turning off all transceivers (air plane mode).

JonathanMarston said,

Steve must have access to a special iPhone. Mine couldn't last 2 hours playing video....

As much as I think the iPhone is a good product now, it is deceptive statements that Jobs makes that incite me to cringe. If he can't be trusted to make an even somewhat accurate statement in his argument, how much weight can you place in his argument?


I agree that Flash is problematic and HTML5 is a better answer, the problem with HTML5 is that the performance level even in Safari on a desktop, let alone on a device is no where near Flash or Silverlight. And Apple doesn't have a solution even with HTML5 beyond video that can offer this level of performance.


Sadly, right now the only people that have a vision of HTML5 replacing Flash and Silverlight even is the IE9 team that is shoving everything to near a compiled product's performance.


(My snarky comment...)
As for him getting 10hrs of video out of the iPhone maybe he is getting it confused with another product or was using his Zune HD where you can get 6+ hrs out of any codec from VC1 to Xvid, even HD quality encodings.

Edited by thenetavenger, Apr 29 2010, 4:57pm :

JonathanMarston said,

Steve must have access to a special iPhone. Mine couldn't last 2 hours playing video....
I've hit 6hrs, with 3G turned on.. I bet in airplane mode I could get more.

Ryoken said,
I've hit 6hrs, with 3G turned on.. I bet in airplane mode I could get more.

That sounds closer to my experience as well.. 2 hours is a bit short..

SputnikGamer said,
'

Your iPhone could but you would have to turn the sound to the minimum setting and lowest brightness. Standard marketing ploy.

...or have it plugged in...

SputnikGamer said,
how long before a antiApple fanboy gets on this .

DEATH TO APPLE!!!!! IGNORANCE! CLOSED SYSTEM! INCOMPATIBILITIES!!! #@##$^%$*&%@#!!!

sarcasm aside, i really don't like Apple, but hey, what can I do about Jobs' decisions?

Seems a bit ignorant to me, alot of popular websites use flash, for Apple to not support it seems... like a bad move?

He makes some good points but I still struggled to read through the other crap. I still can't believe that Apple, of all companies, is criticizing something for not being open.

This at least makes me think Jobs has realized he's got a revolt on his hands. Developers are fed up with BS tactics from Apple and they're jumping ship.

Pong said,
Developers are fed up with BS tactics from Apple and they're jumping ship.
Which ones?

Edited by Elliott, Apr 29 2010, 2:06pm :

SputnikGamer said,

The ones that don't know how to make money.

Or the ones who enjoy programming in a non-apple sanctioned language? Or who don't want to spend months trying to get their app approved? Or who want adult apps? Or who have spent months developing something only to have Apple turn around and say: no.

Pong said,

Or the ones who enjoy programming in a non-apple sanctioned language? Or who don't want to spend months trying to get their app approved? Or who want adult apps? Or who have spent months developing something only to have Apple turn around and say: no.

Objective C is an industry standard. Develop in it and you can port your product to any platform. Nothing abnormal with that.

Of course it takes them months to approve an app. They could charge more for the application so they can hire more staff to do the reviewing if that suites you better?

Adult apps? It's a major company that doesn't want to deal with the same issues that Google ran into when parents and conservatives came in Bible thumping to protect there kids. Apple doesn't want to deal with lawsuits and you think that's a bad thing?

Apple only says no to apps that clearly break the terms which is easy to avoid. Look up whats on the App store. If your idea exists, don't do it because you will probably get denied unless it is unique. Does it replicate any of the core OS functionality, if yes, ask Apple before you start developing it.

People just need to use some common sense here. It's business. Play by the rules of the rule maker or GTFO and cry somewhere else.

SputnikGamer said,

Objective C is an industry standard. Develop in it and you can port your product to any platform. Nothing abnormal with that.

Of course it takes them months to approve an app. They could charge more for the application so they can hire more staff to do the reviewing if that suites you better?

Adult apps? It's a major company that doesn't want to deal with the same issues that Google ran into when parents and conservatives came in Bible thumping to protect there kids. Apple doesn't want to deal with lawsuits and you think that's a bad thing?

Apple only says no to apps that clearly break the terms which is easy to avoid. Look up whats on the App store. If your idea exists, don't do it because you will probably get denied unless it is unique. Does it replicate any of the core OS functionality, if yes, ask Apple before you start developing it.

People just need to use some common sense here. It's business. Play by the rules of the rule maker or GTFO and cry somewhere else.

Why does it matter if its an industry standard? Let Developers write code in whatever language they want, it all ends up the same once it's compiled.

The App Store is full of Chinese copy-cat and fart apps.

The rules are NOT consistent, that is the problem.

Joe Hewitt came back to the platform, actually.
Pong said,
Oh, and Adobe themselves.
Actually, Adobe is still developing for the iPhone and iPad. They're not developing their Flash CS5 Exporter tool for the iPhone OS anymore. There's a big difference.
Pong said,
That's just for starters.
One developer. Good start.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 29 2010, 3:57pm :

Pong said,

Why does it matter if its an industry standard? Let Developers write code in whatever language they want, it all ends up the same once it's compiled.

The App Store is full of Chinese copy-cat and fart apps.

The rules are NOT consistent, that is the problem.

They are full of fart apps but if the sound fart sounds are all different, then the rules are still consistent. I have never seen a Chinese copy-cat app that is the same as another app. You do realize that Farmville/Zombieville are the same game with different story/characters? What you are saying is that Microsoft should sue Blizzard for making Starcraft and Warcraft exactly like Age of Empires and vise versa.

Elliott said,
Joe Hewitt came back to the platform, actually.

He still was fed up enough to quit in the first place.

Elliott said,

Actually, Adobe is still developing for the iPhone and iPad. They're not developing their Flash CS5 Exporter tool for the iPhone OS anymore. There's a big difference.

They've still lost a bunch of flash and actionscript developers instead and if you think Adobe is going to stick around with the iPhone/iPad after recent events I think you're wrong - especially with the rising number of very good Android handsets.

Elliott said,
One developer. Good start.

It was still 2, here's a 3rd http://www.mobileorchard.com/goodbye/

You only need to look on Android forums to find iPhone developers flocking over.

SputnikGamer said,

They are full of fart apps but if the sound fart sounds are all different, then the rules are still consistent. I have never seen a Chinese copy-cat app that is the same as another app. You do realize that Farmville/Zombieville are the same game with different story/characters? What you are saying is that Microsoft should sue Blizzard for making Starcraft and Warcraft exactly like Age of Empires and vise versa.

I never said anything about Farmvillie or anything about not being able to make copies. You're the one who said

SputnikGamer said,
If your idea exists, don't do it because you will probably get denied unless it is unique.

I simply placed a counter argument to that, but you've apparently forgotten you said it.

There was a post on Neowin just a couple of days ago with something like 7 screenshots of identical apps with different names all by the same developer.

Pong said,

He still was fed up enough to quit in the first place.
And then saw that no other platform had development tools that were as good as the iPhone OS or, in his opinion, a user experience that matched the iPhone OS.

Pong said,
They've still lost a bunch of flash and actionscript developers instead and if you think Adobe is going to stick around with the iPhone/iPad after recent events I think you're wrong - especially with the rising number of very good Android handsets.
Pretty sure Apple didn't actually WANT those developers. And no, I don't think Adobe will stop.

Pong said,
It was still 2, here's a 3rd http://www.mobileorchard.com/goodbye/
Okay, that's two. One quitting and coming back means they didn't lose that one.

Pong said,
You only need to look on Android forums to find iPhone developers flocking over.
Oh yeah, in droves. Apple just has no developers on its side left, right?
Whatever developers Apple has lost due to morals and principles, well, that's one thing. Whatever developers Apple has lost because they didn't want to learn Objective-C, well, that was Apple's gamble and sort of their intention.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 29 2010, 3:20pm :

SputnikGamer said,

Objective C is an industry standard. Develop in it and you can port your product to any platform. Nothing abnormal with that.

What about the features it lacks? For one thing Objective C is an 'object based' language like C++, not an 'object oriented' language.


It doesn't matter if it is a standard or not, when you are limited to a development tool it creates problems.

SputnikGamer said,

Objective C is an industry standard. Develop in it and you can port your product to any platform. Nothing abnormal with that.

Of course it takes them months to approve an app. They could charge more for the application so they can hire more staff to do the reviewing if that suites you better?

Adult apps? It's a major company that doesn't want to deal with the same issues that Google ran into when parents and conservatives came in Bible thumping to protect there kids. Apple doesn't want to deal with lawsuits and you think that's a bad thing?

Apple only says no to apps that clearly break the terms which is easy to avoid. Look up whats on the App store. If your idea exists, don't do it because you will probably get denied unless it is unique. Does it replicate any of the core OS functionality, if yes, ask Apple before you start developing it.

People just need to use some common sense here. It's business. Play by the rules of the rule maker or GTFO and cry somewhere else.

I would say keeping adult material out of the hands of children goes FAR beyond a "conservative" issue...

Pong said,

I never said anything about Farmvillie or anything about not being able to make copies. You're the one who said

I simply placed a counter argument to that, but you've apparently forgotten you said it.

There was a post on Neowin just a couple of days ago with something like 7 screenshots of identical apps with different names all by the same developer.

Umm yes you did? I believe "Chinese copy-cat" was your words. I was using as Farmville as an example. Sure its the same game twenty times over with a small but different twist. Legally and in the case of the app store, that doesn't make it a copy cat game so the app store is no full of "Chinese copy-cat" apps like YOU said.

I don't agree with him on all points, but I hate Flash so much so that I want to see it die as a standard for web content.

KeR said,
I don't agree with him on all points, but I hate Flash so much so that I want to see it die as a standard for web content.

Yeah, he had me until he discussed 3rd party tools (The "most important" reason)...

But I would like to see Flash die as well...

I think he kinda hit the nail on the head. But, even though flash was created for the mouse pointer, I still have seen people use it through touch interfaces. - its not as responsive as you want it to be, but i believe, thats the programmers job to ensure it works..

But this kinda assures that we will never have flash on Apple's line up of mobile devices..

dimithrak said,
I think he kinda hit the nail on the head. But, even though flash was created for the mouse pointer, I still have seen people use it through touch interfaces. - its not as responsive as you want it to be, but i believe, thats the programmers job to ensure it works..

But this kinda assures that we will never have flash on Apple's line up of mobile devices..

There isn't a single feature of Flash that is needed that can't already be done using JavaScript. Even the games can be made using Javascript and work just fine on an iPhone and iPad. People are just complaining that they have to learn how to do real programming instead of letting a third party handle the "hard stuff"

SputnikGamer said,

There isn't a single feature of Flash that is needed that can't already be done using JavaScript. Even the games can be made using Javascript and work just fine on an iPhone and iPad. People are just complaining that they have to learn how to do real programming instead of letting a third party handle the "hard stuff"

Well, and that's the point that Steve makes: Adobe should start to reorient Flash to become an IDE for these technologies. I haven't used an IDE like Flash in a long time for my work, but I know some programmers depend on them.

Elliott said,
Well, and that's the point that Steve makes: Adobe should start to reorient Flash to become an IDE for these technologies. I haven't used an IDE like Flash in a long time for my work, but I know some programmers depend on them.

Well based on this and previous interviews, Apples product will fully support HTML5. Adobe is planning on a fully functional export in HTML5 for flash. The only thing developers can complain about is that their products have to be viewed in browser, not the app store, so they can't make money unless they use the kit provided by Apple. Either way, they can get their products on the platform.

SputnikGamer said,

There isn't a single feature of Flash that is needed that can't already be done using JavaScript. Even the games can be made using Javascript and work just fine on an iPhone and iPad. People are just complaining that they have to learn how to do real programming instead of letting a third party handle the "hard stuff"

i am not a big fan of Java. It seems that any web app we use that has a minor upgrade requires a new version of Java...hell, Flash for that matter as well. We use java/flash with several vendors to access their websites. They perform a website update, and all of a sudden people cannot access the site until they are upgraded. PITA if you ask me. Oh, and some programs Java is a huge resource hog. Granted, this may be the vendor programming Java that has the problem, not Java itself...but its still a pita.

techbeck said,

i am not a big fan of Java. It seems that any web app we use that has a minor upgrade requires a new version of Java...hell, Flash for that matter as well. We use java/flash with several vendors to access their websites. They perform a website update, and all of a sudden people cannot access the site until they are upgraded. PITA if you ask me. Oh, and some programs Java is a huge resource hog. Granted, this may be the vendor programming Java that has the problem, not Java itself...but its still a pita.

That comes back to using third party software. The point of all this is to move developers away from those systems and rely on what works on all browsers. The idea is no Flash, no Java, no anything other than HTML5, JavaScript in combination with PHP/ASP servers so that no matter what device you are on, it will always work and never need third party upgrades.

SputnikGamer said,

That comes back to using third party software. The point of all this is to move developers away from those systems and rely on what works on all browsers. The idea is no Flash, no Java, no anything other than HTML5, JavaScript in combination with PHP/ASP servers so that no matter what device you are on, it will always work and never need third party upgrades.

That would be nice. Will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years or so.

techbeck said,

That would be nice. Will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years or so.

We currently have a headache where I word because a developer made a browser based Classroom in Flash. The classroom is one of the best in the market but because it is Flash based it is causing all kinds of problems that we can't do anything to fix. When the new version of Safari and Firefox came out, it blocked the classroom from launching because the older Flash code couldn't recognize the browser properly. We now have to talk to the developers who are pretty quick and blaming Safari and FF for the issue. Basically, they don't want to have to pay for a newer version of Flash to fix the issues.

SputnikGamer said,

There isn't a single feature of Flash that is needed that can't already be done using JavaScript. Even the games can be made using Javascript and work just fine on an iPhone and iPad. People are just complaining that they have to learn how to do real programming instead of letting a third party handle the "hard stuff"


easy answer: Microphone and Camera access. it's not on HTML5 and I bet it's something that people using their iPhone HD would love to have if it has the rumored front facing camera.
touché.

SputnikGamer said,

There isn't a single feature of Flash that is needed that can't already be done using JavaScript. Even the games can be made using Javascript and work just fine on an iPhone and iPad. People are just complaining that they have to learn how to do real programming instead of letting a third party handle the "hard stuff"

When used appropriately, Flash is a tool that simplifies and speeds up devleopment. There's nothing wrong with that. Now whether Flash is stable/optimized that's questionable. There's a ton of stuff that can be done easily in flash but takes forever to do in javascript. e.g. how the hell can you rotate an image dynamically using js? pump out all the frames? well bandwidth ain't free.

Why write assembly code when you can code in C++ and let the compiler handle the "hard stuff" for you?

Edited by bestbuy, Apr 29 2010, 4:13pm :

SputnikGamer said,

Well based on this and previous interviews, Apples product will fully support HTML5. Adobe is planning on a fully functional export in HTML5 for flash. The only thing developers can complain about is that their products have to be viewed in browser, not the app store, so they can't make money unless they use the kit provided by Apple. Either way, they can get their products on the platform.

Yeah, I think the export to HTML5 is going to be the way to go going forward...

techbeck said,

i am not a big fan of Java. It seems that any web app we use that has a minor upgrade requires a new version of Java...hell, Flash for that matter as well. We use java/flash with several vendors to access their websites. They perform a website update, and all of a sudden people cannot access the site until they are upgraded. PITA if you ask me. Oh, and some programs Java is a huge resource hog. Granted, this may be the vendor programming Java that has the problem, not Java itself...but its still a pita.

Oh, Java is horrendous as well... *sigh*

bestbuy said,

e.g. how the hell can you rotate an image dynamically using js? pump out all the frames? well bandwidth ain't free.

jQuery already does that and at no bandwidth cost.

bdsams said,
Interesting piece, cant wait to see how Adobe responds...

So, what about Apple QuickTime? Just tried to play a sound clip from Apple's website, it said: QuickTime required: Free Download...

Dead'Soul said,

So, what about Apple QuickTime? Just tried to play a sound clip from Apple's website, it said: QuickTime required: Free Download...
You know, I don't know why Apple is doing that still on browsers other than Safari. Safari gets HTML5 video, but the rest get the "Download QuickTime" message. They could at least include Chrome since it supports H.264 video.

Dead'Soul said,

So, what about Apple QuickTime? Just tried to play a sound clip from Apple's website, it said: QuickTime required: Free Download...

Yeah, they will soon become HTML5 videos, don't worry. No QuickTime involved here.

PsykX said,

Yeah, they will soon become HTML5 videos, don't worry. No QuickTime involved here.

Do you know what percentage of the videos are in HTML5 right now? 0.1%? %1?

Edited by zagor, Apr 29 2010, 4:33pm :

zagor said,

Do you know what percentage of the videos are in HTML5 right now? 0.1%? %1?
Most videos on the internet are *available* in HTML5, if you consider the list of sites that have it which Jobs mentions in his letter. However, generally HTML5 is used as a last resort at the moment. As browsers improve their support for it, sites will improve the way they handle it too.

Minimoose said,
It's very buggy as well.
Not really. Just some of the custom player controls out there are a little buggy. You can just plop the video right into the page with a simple <video> tag and it'd work just fine.

noroom said,
Well, ****. Now I'm not sure I want the iPhone OS to support flash.

Why? Just because Jobs made up some crap?

PsykX said,

Yeah, they will soon become HTML5 videos, don't worry. No QuickTime involved here.

That's great news. I hate Quicktime just as much as Flash... LOL